NEW DELHI, Aug 29: The Supreme Court on Thursday reprimanded the Telangana chief minister Revanth Reddy for making “irresponsible” comments amounting to “casting aspersions” on the court in granting bail earlier this week to Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K. Kavitha in the Delhi excise policy case.
Mr Reddy is reported in the media to have said Ms Kavitha got bail because of a deal between the BRS and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Union Minister Bandi Sanjay Kumar was reported to have posted a tweet alleging a political collusion between the Congress and the BJP in the backdrop of the bail order. Other Congress and BJP leaders in Telangana had also issued various statements.
“Do we pass our orders in consultation with political parties? We are not bothered about which party politicians belong to… We are not bothered by politicians’ criticism of our orders. We do our duty as per the Constitution and our oath,” Justice B.R. Gavai lashed out to senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Siddharth Luthra and advocate Sravan Kumar, appearing for Mr Reddy.
The reprimand came as a three-judge bench of Justices BR Gavai, PK Mishra, and KV Viswanathan was hearing a plea seeking transfer of the 2015 cash-for-votes case, in which Revanth Reddy is the prime accused, to a state outside Telangana. The petitioners argued he could influence witnesses and tamper with evidence. During the hearing the Supreme Court was told, “It has been publicly reported… the kind of statements he (the Chief Minister) made – that if police does anything, he will have them beaten up on streets…”
“Should a person holding a constitutional post make such statements? There should be mutual respect (between politicians and judiciary)… how can anyone say we pass orders for political reasons?” the court said, “If you do not respect (us) then we will send (your) trial elsewhere.” “This is the highest court in the country… just yesterday we issued notice to Maharashtra’s Additional Chief Secretary (Forest and Revenue Department),” the court warned Mr Reddy.
The reference was to a notice demanding to know why the ACS, Rajesh Kumar, should not face contempt proceedings for suggesting the Supreme Court is not following the law. “Will we pass our order after consulting any political party? This (claim) should be the basis for transfer of the case… we perform our duty according to conscience and oath…” the court raged. The court finally adjourned to Monday the petition to shift the trial. “We are not closing this now… we always say we will not interfere in jurisdiction of legislature and same is expected of them too.”
Ms K Kavitha – the daughter of ex Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrasekhar Rao, who was defeated by the Congress and Mr Reddy in last year’s election – was yesterday granted bail by the top court in the Delhi liquor policy scam. She was arrested by both the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation.
After bail was granted, Mr Reddy was quoted by a section of the media as saying, “It is a fact that BRS worked for the victory of the BJP in the 2024 Lok Sabha poll. There is also talk Kavitha got bail because of the deal between BRS and BJP…”
Both Justice Gavai and Justice Viswanathan were on the Bench which gave Ms Kavitha bail on August 27, primarily on the grounds that the investigation was complete; she had already spent five months in jail; and there was no possibility of the completion of the trial in the near future.
On Thursday morning, Justices Gavai and Viswanathan, this time sitting in a three-judge combination with Justice P.K. Mishra, were hearing a petition filed by BRS MLA Guntakandla Jagadish Reddy to shift the trial in the 2015 cash-for-vote case, in which the Chief Minister is a prime accused, to a State outside Telangana.
The court had orally conveyed that it intended to appoint a Special Prosecutor rather than shift the case outside Telangana. The Bench had posted the case at 2 p.m. to pass a formal order finalising the name of the Special Prosecutor after consulting with the Telangana High Court judges during the lunch break.
However, matters took a sudden turn for the worse for the Telangana Chief Minister at 2 p.m. The Bench, pointing to media reports of Mr Revanth Reddy’s comments, accused him of challenging the authority of the Supreme Court.
In his turn, senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for Mr Jagadish Reddy, said Mr Revanth Reddy had earlier threatened the investigating officers in the cash-for-vote case. The trial would not be fair as Mr Revanth Reddy was both Chief Minister and Home Minister of Telangana, he submitted. Mr Naidu said Mr Revanth Reddy was “both prosecutor and accused in the case.”
He said if Mr Revanth Reddy had the “audacity” to challenge the Supreme Court orders, one could imagine what he would do during trial court proceedings within the State of Telangana. “If somebody has the audacity of commenting on the order of the Supreme Court like this… if somebody is of this adamant attitude, then let him [Revanth Reddy] face trial outside the State…” Justice Gavai addressed the Chief Minister’s lawyers.
Mr Rohatgi urged the court to give him time to speak to the Chief Minister. He successfully asked the court to defer the case to September 2. On May 31, 2015, Mr Revanth Reddy, then with the Telugu Desam Party, was apprehended by the anti-corruption bureau (ACB) while allegedly paying ₹50 lakh bribe to Elvis Stephenson, a nominated MLA, for supporting TDP nominee Vem Narendar Reddy in the legislative council elections.
In July 2015, the ACB had filed a charge-sheet against Mr Reddy and others under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. On January 5, the apex court had deferred till February the hearing of Mr Revanth Reddy’s separate petition challenging a High Court order dismissing his plea questioning the jurisdiction of an ACB court in conducting the trial in the cash-for-vote scam case.
Mr Reddy has challenged in the Supreme Court the June 1, 2021 order of the High Court by which his plea questioning the jurisdiction of the Special Court to conduct the trial in the case was dismissed.
(Manas Dasgupta)
